Second Amendment: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

The attacks on our World
Trade Center have brought unimaginable grief to thousands of American
families. They have also ignited a keen awareness of our vulnerability.
And, the dereliction of federal government has become evident by its inability
or refusal to provide adequate nationwide defenses from foreign aggression.
Whether the appropriate charge is criminal negligence or high treason,
there is no question that the people have been betrayed. However, individual
security is not the constitutional responsibility of government. More
than one judicial decision will confirm such a statement. In other words,
it is you, the individual that is obliged to make provisions for your
own safety by adhering to the First Law of Nature. You must respond to
this fundamental law, or perish. I recognize that this is harsh news for
the politically correct sensibilities of most Americans, but this revelation
is a simple fact of life. Self-defense is the natural and honorable stance
that we must all promote. Without decisive steps to defend self and family,
"security" is only a word.

"The constitutions
of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people;
that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."--Thomas
Jefferson to John Cartwright [1824]

Questions regarding the First
Law of Nature were resolved at the time the Second Amendment--preeminent
defender of our Bill of Rights--was ratified on December 15th, 1791. This
fundamental law reigns supreme over every law contrived by politicians.
And, the continuous and very real protections that the Second Amendment
affords cannot logically be interpreted as antiquated necessity. Its purpose
remains sound and noble. Accordingly, constitutional law and commonsense
should render further discussion respecting the absolutes of self-defense
as unwarranted. However, as this essential law is now under an unnatural
attack by the encroaching United Nations, faithless public servants, and
other debilitating influences of Socialist activism, an uncompromising
attitude and a defensive awareness are indispensable. Diligently exposing
the fraudulent nature and weaknesses of our demoralizing adversaries and
their emotionally vulnerable admirers is no less vital to national security
and the preservation of individual freedoms.

"To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."--George
Mason

Within the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the rights of
the people are correctly interpreted as referring to the rights of individuals.
Why is it, that only within the Second Amendment are people allegedly
intended by the Founding Fathers to denote a collective or state right?
Very simply, politicians and judges of a disloyal or subversive nature
are fearful of an armed citizenry. For obvious reasons, these contemptuous
public servants do not want civilian firearm ownership, and argue that
only the police and military should be armed. Their fear of the people
is as it should be, and was the intent of our Founding Fathers. Through
peaceful human rights activism including imposing demonstrations, it will
be wise to indelibly imprint such forebodings on the forefront of their
consciousness. Be creative!

"When governments
fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government
there is tyranny."--Thomas Jefferson

"A free
people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their
own government."--George Washington

The following truths must
be conveyed to these unrestrained servants of the people:For the preservation
of liberty, this nation, self, or family, the First Law of Nature does
not require bureaucratic sanction prior to its enforcement by the people.
And, whether or not politicians and judges view the Second Amendment as
impaired is not a governing factor for the resolute individualist. Further,
genuine patriots--those loyal to this nation and the principles of its
Constitution--and other adherents of the First Law of Nature, will never
be enslaved or deterred as a result of unnatural and unconstitutional
laws, regardless of counterfactual Supreme Court judgments. There are
90,000,000-armed Americans (University of Chicago Research Center). Although
ten-percent is conceivable (9,000,000), if only one-percent of that number
(900,000) begins to energetically react--expertly or not--to human rights
violations, there will indeed be ample cause for concern on the part of
the unfaithful public servant. As the supreme counterforce to the tyrannical
powers of government, our Founding Fathers forged the unyielding Second
Amendment--the Excalibur of the people. Those politicians and judges from
this subversive tribe and the others now performing their ballet from
atop a fence will display a degree of wisdom by briskly restoring constitutional
government and justice.

In one of only a few correct
court decisions with respect to constitutional intent, Supreme Court Chief
Justice Marshall proclaimed: "any act of the legislature,
repugnant to the Constitution, is void."--Marbury vs.
Madison [1803]

In further reference to the
controlling or banning of guns, I have also caught the words "compelling
state interests" being foolishly and dangerously flung about. In
truth, the "compelling state interests" are enumerated within
the twenty-six Amendments (18th repealed by the 21st) and in Article I,
Section VIII, of the United States Constitution. Federal government is
responsible for no more or less. If, defending the fundamental principles
of the Constitution is not the compelling interest referred to, then what
other interests should be of higher priority or greater concern to the
federal government? None! These three words, "compelling state interests,"
can be the most menacing of semantic combinations; it holds the potential
for unlocking the gates that constrain arbitrary legislation, counterfactual
judgment, and unlimited oppression.

Although Attorney General
John Ashcroft and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently and correctly
ruled that the Second Amendment did in fact protect the right of individuals
to keep and bear arms, the infringements persist. Fearing the potential
of an unlimited armed citizenry and reasons of "compelling state
interests," this cowardly court refused to adequately address the
imposition by our Founding Fathers of four absolute and unyielding words:
"Shall not be infringed." Any court ruling that is erroneous
or incomplete is repugnant to the Constitution and an insult to our intelligence.
Always taking delight in their supreme abilities to subvert the Constitution,
and never to be overshadowed by judges of an inferior court, the U. S.
Supreme Court--in its typical dereliction-of-duty-mode--has again refused
to hear arguments relative to this issue of national importance. Lacking
even a rodent's squeak of complaint from the National Rifle Association
(NRA), President Bush--through Solicitor General Ted Olson--has evidently
requested that the nine black robes refrain from ruling on this particular
constitutional question. It is obvious that one governmental branch is
colluding with another. Frankly, I cannot think of a more compelling reason
for publicly impeaching George Bush, and the deplorable conduct of this
self-perceived august court.

It is crystal clear that
the enforcement of the Bill of Rights has become inconsistent. Prior to
the recent enactment of the "USA Patriot Act," if a state or
local government were to violate the human rights of any individual, the
federal government and courts--often self-exempted from the same laws--would
in most cases chastise that offending state or city. Excepting, of course,
the unalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is the only constitutional protection to be singled
out for state and local recognition or lack thereof, inaccurate or vague
interpretation, and unconstitutional infringements. Whereas, the states
are rarely permitted to infringe upon the human rights contained within
the remaining nine Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government
and courts to assault the principles of the Second Amendment. Nationally,
thousands of innocent and nonviolent people have been prosecuted, convicted,
and incarcerated as a result of unconstitutional firearm legislation.
These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage yet willfully and
readily employed in every state within this nation. At this stage of his
appointment, Attorney General John Ashcroft adamantly refuses to enforce
the Second Amendment nationwide. Instead, he vigorously prosecutes innocent,
nonviolent persons charged with violating these unconstitutional laws.
With the exception of justified restrictions placed upon people who have
been constitutionally convicted as violent felons, "Shall not be
infringed" unequivocally demands the void of all criminal and civil
laws pertaining to firearm possession. Be pleased with this fact or not,
there are absolutely no qualifications placed on the Second Amendment,
or the lawful individuals that it protects. Our government and courts
have no authority to enact or enforce any so-called "reasonable firearm
restrictions" or "commonsense gun laws." Period!

In violation of the Bill
of Rights, my state requires the possession of a license that permits
me to bear a firearm. As a "compelling state interest," should
I not also be required to possess a license that permits me to freely
speak or write what is on my mind, a license that permits me to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, or a license that permits me
to refrain from incriminating myself? What other unalienable rights should
I not be permitted to exercise without a license?

"Who are the
militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm
the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birthright of an American…. The unlimited power
of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the
people"--The Pennsylvania Gazette [February 20,
1788]

Is the right of individuals
to bear firearms of choice, absolute? Yes! Of course it is. The unjustified
use of a firearm is an entirely different matter. Our rights do not extend
beyond the point where they begin to violate the rights of others. We
do not have a right to use firearms for criminal intent. Nor are we permitted
to maliciously shout fire in a crowded auditorium. Freedom of speech cannot
lawfully be abridged unless used in an unlawfully destructive manner.
And, our right to keep and bear arms cannot lawfully be infringed upon
except when firearms are used for criminal purposes. Unlawfulness stems
from anti-social behavior, not the tools used to achieve the nefarious
results. Use of a firearm or any weapon (automobile, knife, poison, baseball
bat, and on forever) to violate the rights of others is a felony offense,
and has no correlation with the Second Amendment. We have an abundance
of laws to control or punish destructive behavior. Criminal use of firearms
should be dealt with on an individual basis without penalizing the entire
nation for the misdeeds of a few. Preventing citizens from firearm ownership
simply because they might violate the rights of others is unconstitutional.
In doing so, innocent persons are punished along with the guilty. Rebellious
of the aforesaid truths, our government conducts all Americans as suspected
criminals.

The people of this world
have indeed suffered as a result of government infringements on this basic
human right of self-defense. The germane questions are: Would we have
lost 3,000 lives at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, had the lawful
passengers of four flights been armed with handguns? It is reasonable
to conclude that our losses would not have been so staggering had this
been the case. And, would the peoples of China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Soviet
Russia, Chechnya, and Kosovo have become victims of rape, torture, and
genocide had the citizenry been well prepared with handguns and assault
weapons for self-defense? With adequate weaponry at hand, along with an
appropriately defensive attitude, the numbers of casualties certainly
would not have counted into the millions. It is estimated that 170,000,000-civilians
worldwide have been murdered by governments within the 20th Century (University
of Hawaii research). If we want effective personal and "Homeland"
security then all lawful citizens must be armed. If you desire peace,
visualize self-defense. A defensive posture is far more effective than
surrender or hope.

"Americans
have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of
other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."--James Madison, the Federalist Papers No.
46 at 243-244

The Constitution was conceived
for the enumeration of legitimate authority and limitations of federal
and state governments. Justly restrained, no government has the constitutional
or moral authority--in any degree or manner--to infringe upon our unalienable,
Second Amendment rights and duty of self-defense. Rebellious of this embarrassing
yet straightforward and unalterable Second Amendment, our disingenuous
officials--under the pretense of "safety concerns," "compelling
state interests," and the "war on drugs"--have enacted
unconstitutional and pernicious legislation, placing millions of men,
women, and children at serious risk.

Whether or not the majority
of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and
bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally
disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution
equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this
is a nation of laws and not of men. We do not consider the political correctness
of Socialism or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable,
constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise.
We are dependent upon constitutional law for such judgments. Not any individual
or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing
which Article or Amendment is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving
needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty, and
in its entirety.

For those who rely on constitutional
law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally
protected right." Regardless of this truth, most states require a
citizen to pay a "fee," in order to obtain a "license,"
before keeping and/or bearing a firearm; federal and state "taxes"
are always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The
U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing
or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.--Follett
vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

Although neither decision
is related to firearms, they nonetheless settle the question concerning
the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation, or registration of any
constitutional right. Laws requiring persons to obtain permission from
states to carry concealed firearms are unconstitutional. Seeking permission
to exercise a right is absurd. Unconstitutional laws lack legitimacy and
should never be obeyed by a free people.

"Infringed:
1. To violate or go beyond the limits of (e.g., a law). 2. To break
(a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of: violate. 3. To
defeat: invalidate.--to encroach upon something. Infringement: 1.
A violation, as of a law or agreement. 2. An encroachment, as of a
privilege or right." Webster's University Dictionary

If the 20,000 federal and
state gun laws do not flawlessly illustrate Webster's definition of infringed,
then no other repressive or invading action will.

Our Founding Fathers unequivocally
prohibited the following bicentennial restructuring of the Second Amendment
by politicians and bureaucrats: First registering the pre-approved firearm
with the BATF, and after receiving a concealed weapons permit, "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,"
except, by means of 20,000 state and federal gun laws. Or, on airplanes,
on passenger trains, on buses, in churches, within 1,000 yards from schools,
in courthouses, in government buildings, in taverns, in national parks,
on most city streets, during interstate trucking, and unless opinion polls
indicate to politicians that additional infringements are conducive to
their self-serving needs. Rubbish! Dissuading tyrannical government requires
effective armaments by the people at all times and in all places. Civilians
have the right to possess and bear the same fully-automatic firearms as
law enforcement and military personnel.

As they run contrary to the
intent of the Bill of Rights, these "gun control laws" should
never be respected as laws but instead condemned by the people as acts
of infringing outlaw legislation. These legislative and judicial illegalities
represent direct assaults upon the unalienable rights of all Americans.
Without question, it is outlaw legislation that has no constitutional
foundation. This legislation, under the pretense of legitimate congressional
action must be immediately voided.

As a former peace officer
of many years, I can state with credibility that guns save innocent lives
far more often than they kill. Law enforcement documentation also indicates
that there are over two million lives saved by guns each year. However,
these facts are never disclosed by the local or national media. In opposition
to this truth, I have heard many victim disarmament exponents say from
the other side of the mouth, that they only want "reasonable restrictions"
on gun ownership. That is of course, "for the sake of our children."
Does the number of 20,000 standing gun control laws appear to be "reasonable
restrictions" to anyone other than a deceitful politician or a simpleton?

In 1856, the U. S. Supreme
Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals
but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland, 59 US
(HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 [1856]. A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared
in 1982: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the
state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."--Bowers vs.
devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).

The reality is that you have
no right to demand of anyone to risk his or her life in the defense of
yours. Obviously, preserving your life is a very personal endeavor requiring
sound judgment. Make no mistake! Anyone--regardless of ignorance or intent--who
attempts to deprive you of the means or ability to defend the lives of
your family is a very real enemy and must be exposed as such. All anti
self-defense activists are as deadly a threat to you and your family as
any violent criminal, terrorist, or psychopath. Never underestimate the
destructive potential of these victim disarmament fanatics, with their
inherent theatrical talents for staging mindless mob melodrama. Does the
"Million Mom March" rekindle memories of such absurdities? Their
actions contributing to the same deadly result, these million goose-stepping
moms and many politicians (Bush, Clinton, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein,
Kennedy, Daschel, Lautenberg, on and on), must all be held accountable
for the thousands of American men, women, and children who--through unconstitutional,
outlaw legislation--are prevented from defending their lives.

How many celebrities and
elected officials venture outdoors without the security of armed bodyguards
in their presence? Are their lives of greater value than your own? Can
you afford to retain the same quality of protection for yourself and family?
Dialing 911 will not assure your safety. Although in most cases they are
willing to assist, police usually provide a post-incident response. After
the damage is done, they will always be there to investigate your homicide
or rape. Remaining armed is the only natural and reliable alternative
to you becoming a victim of robbery, rape, assault, or murder.

Because of their ceaseless
and malicious distortion of gun related facts, many members of the Socialist
news media are morally responsible for these horrific losses. Knowing
full well that women are far more vulnerable to physical assault, the
"National Organization for Women" (NOW) lacks creditability
by failing to encourage the arming of their supporters for self-defense.
If they were sincere in their concern for the welfare of women, they would
certainly do so. And, acts of hypocrisy by the "American Civil Liberties
Union" (ACLU) for refusing to defend our Second Amendment rights
should not go without justified public condemnation.

Unfortunately for humanity,
organizers of the Socialist movement perceive man's eternal search for
truth as a challenge to be avoided at all costs. Genuine concern is never
given if that price demands victimization of the defenseless. In their
desire to create illusions, thereby manipulate public opinion, the Socialist
proponents of political correctness will concoct labels for objects, behavior,
and people. Although this practice permeates every aspect of our society
with its misleading and enfeebling effects, I will provide only a few
examples that pertain to firearms. What was once appropriately and widely
accepted as "self or family defense," has been demonized as
another act of "senseless gun violence." The oppressive legislative
action called "gun control," is now compassionately labeled
as "gun safety." And, the harsh and restricting organization
known as "Handgun Control Inc.," has been re-labeled as a family
friendly "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." They have
been successful. Individuals of a less substantial character are embarrassed
to advocate firearm ownership and self-defense. These Socialists vultures
feed off the weaknesses of their emotional admires. Have we the people--traditionally
trusting in a commonsense approach to life--not yet discovered that rearranging
labels does not alter even one iota, the reality that Socialists, on a
par with Communists and Fascists, are ruthless enslavers? It is all about
subduing the people; not gun safety.

I am confident that genuine
American patriots will perceive the veracity of my statements regarding
our unalienable right of self-defense. If such truths can be agreed upon,
then why are we demeaning our predominant position by begging these insubordinate
servants to honor the Second Amendment? Dare the oath-breaking cowards
to do otherwise!